There has been a lot said lately about TWA Flight 800. It is a Movie or Documentary starting on July 17th. However, so far, I have only seen that it will be on EPIX. We do not get that here on Frontier FIOS TV, but was wondering if anyone has seen that it will be shown on any other channel. Not having EPIX do they usually make their stuff available?

A snippet: "Now we learn that former NTSB and TWA investigators who weren’t allowed to provide dissenting opinions when the original accident report was released are speaking out."

Doesn't sound like your normal conspiracy theorists to me. I'll watch if I can get the program. It does seem like it would be hard to cover up a story of this magnitude, but IMHO you never know. Worth spending a little of my time on, again IMHO. YMMV.

I saw a short snippet from one of the morning shows. Looks like they have some 'whistle blowers' in the documentary coming out saying there were unauthorized/undocumented FBI people in with the wreckage when they weren't supposed to be there.

I don't know that we'll ever know for sure what's true and what isn't. But I think it looks like an interesting show and I'd like to watch the whole thing.

I saw a snippet on the 'War and Peace Report' that is on PBS. It all sounded plausible except when the 'scientific expert' kept on saying the radar reports showed a object going through the plane and coming out the other side. I didn't realize that radar showed that kind of detail.

But then again, you really had to think maybe there was some plausibility that the Navy shot the plane down after they kept bringing forward witnesses and people involved in the incident that said there was a coverup/subterfuge. The US Navy did shoot down a Iranian airliner over the gulf that was on a scheduled flight, so them shooting down a airliner isn't totally unbelievable.

The amount of power that a ship captain is kinda scary, and you know what they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And high level Navy officers just keep getting canned, so it appears that there is a ingrained organizational problem.

Course, this is the same channel that said 911 World Trade Center buildings collapse couldn't have been caused by airplanes, so their credibility is certainly questionable.

But then again, you really had to think maybe there was some plausibility that the Navy shot the plane down after they kept bringing forward witnesses and people involved in the incident that said there was a coverup/subterfuge. The US Navy did shoot down a Iranian airliner over the gulf that was on a scheduled flight, so them shooting down a airliner isn't totally unbelievable.

I saw a short snippet from one of the morning shows. Looks like they have some 'whistle blowers' in the documentary coming out saying there were unauthorized/undocumented FBI people in with the wreckage when they weren't supposed to be there.

The NTSB was investigating this as an accident. The FBI was investigating it as a criminal act at the same time. The NTSB gets priority over all other investigators so the FBI being there when they weren't supposed to, could simply be a jurisdictional issue, not some nefarious coverup. BTW, the guy making these claims also said the feds were using psychics.

The majority, if not all, of the 'evidence' they have, they have been claiming since the guy behind the film started the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization back in 1999.

I saw a snippet on the 'War and Peace Report' that is on PBS. It all sounded plausible except when the 'scientific expert' kept on saying the radar reports showed a object going through the plane and coming out the other side. I didn't realize that radar showed that kind of detail.

I'm pretty sure that an object could be seen approaching, and debris leaving on the same trajectory.

A snippet: "Now we learn that former NTSB and TWA investigators who weren’t allowed to provide dissenting opinions when the original accident report was released are speaking out."

Doesn't sound like your normal conspiracy theorists to me. I'll watch if I can get the program. It does seem like it would be hard to cover up a story of this magnitude, but IMHO you never know. Worth spending a little of my time on, again IMHO. YMMV.

I have read a few articles, I will probably watch the show. So why are people coming up 17 years later and saying these things? Salinger said he had proof, why would a patriot like him never release the details?

I have read a few articles, I will probably watch the show. So why are people coming up 17 years later and saying these things? Salinger said he had proof, why would a patriot like him never release the details?

The theories gained traction and credibility when former JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger claimed he saw a document (which turned out to be phony) from a French intelligence official implicating the Navy.

My coworkers when I worked at Point Mugu for the Navy thought that the plane was accidentally shot down by an errant missile with an inert warhead during a Navy exercise. Not an evil terrorist attack but a cover up

I'm a science guy, not a conspiracy theory advocate. This is based on now retired and safe from repercussion participants' ignored findings. That said I think there are sincere differences in every endeavor and that the original findings are most likely correct. I hope to watch and will be open.

My impression is that it's not about new evidence, it's about suppressed evidence. Coverups DO happen. No conspiracy nuts required.

Yeah. The main "whistleblowers" complaint was that the FBI were jerks. Not that there was any suppressed evidence, but that he was treated poorly by the FBI who acted like they were in charge.

Which is pretty standard FBI.

The witness who say they "saw a missile" also say they heard a loud noise and that's what made them look up. Then they saw a "missile". Well, the loud noise they heard was the explosion. Unless we posit a situation where a missile was inbound to destroy it and had the incredible timing to arrive just a few seconds after the wing tank exploded, then the timeline doesn't work. The explosion preceded the line of fire that they saw.

__________________
Remember "Just Alley"? Re-read it To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts..

Please do not "Fixed Your Post" on my posts. I find that rude and annoying. Thank you for your consideration.

I saw a piece on CNN last week. The guys coming forward 17 years later seemed like cranks to me. I found the FBI guy (Kalstrom sp.) far more credible. It seems like a cynical attempt at a money grab by people getting on in life.

And as with all cover up allegations, it's too damn hard to keep the lid on these things. No sold.

The witness who say they "saw a missile" also say they heard a loud noise and that's what made them look up. Then they saw a "missile". Well, the loud noise they heard was the explosion. Unless we posit a situation where a missile was inbound to destroy it and had the incredible timing to arrive just a few seconds after the wing tank exploded, then the timeline doesn't work. The explosion preceded the line of fire that they saw.

I thought the evidence based on the reconstruction of the plane was pretty conclusive that the explosion can from inside the plane. I remember seeing g pictures of this when the original report was released.